timujin:If this has gone on longer than the statute of limitations on the original crime, they just need to let the guy go.

You appear to be focused on the fact that he is a non-violent functioning member of society whose removal will have significant negative outcomes for his children specifically and therefore society generally.

This view of the situation is clearly ridiculous since there is no giant punishment boner. And as we know prison is about getting a punishment boner.

You can sign a change.org petition to get him out of prison and back to his family here:http://www.change.org/petitions/attorney-general-chris-koster-rel ease-cornealious-michael-anderson-iii-from-prison?utm_campaign=new_sig nature&utm_medium=email&utm_source=signature_receipt#share

timujin:If this has gone on longer than the statute of limitations on the original crime, they just need to let the guy go.

statute of limitations is from the date of the crime to prosecution. he has already been prosecuted, tried, and convicted, so statute of limitations is not applicable. then there's right to a speedy trial... but he had a speedy trial... maybe there's a constitutional punishment issue, to wait fearful for 13 years... but, that's a little goofy too.

sounds like he's screwed because justice is not about fairness. it's a system that works as hard as it can to be applied according to its system. inherently, it will make mistakes, and then refuse equity to enter the question. because, after all, this is a society of of laws, not men.

/ i would support the governor that would commute a sentence like this. the governor enjoys an equitable check and balance to the harshness of the law. so, as a government, we have prepared for fark ups in the system. unfortunately, no governor has ever commuted any sentence, unless for his campaign supporters.

pute kisses like a man:timujin: If this has gone on longer than the statute of limitations on the original crime, they just need to let the guy go.

statute of limitations is from the date of the crime to prosecution. he has already been prosecuted, tried, and convicted, so statute of limitations is not applicable. then there's right to a speedy trial... but he had a speedy trial... maybe there's a constitutional punishment issue, to wait fearful for 13 years... but, that's a little goofy too.

sounds like he's screwed because justice is not about fairness. it's a system that works as hard as it can to be applied according to its system. inherently, it will make mistakes, and then refuse equity to enter the question. because, after all, this is a society of of laws, not men.

/ i would support the governor that would commute a sentence like this. the governor enjoys an equitable check and balance to the harshness of the law. so, as a government, we have prepared for fark ups in the system. unfortunately, no governor has ever commuted any sentence, unless for his campaign supporters.

If I may speak on his behalf I don't believe he was invoking the statue of limitations as a legal remedy to the problem. More of a suggestion that "hey if the statute is up it seems to make sense that this is shiatballs and we should let the dude go"

I think this is the same guy they talked about on This American Life a bit back. The guy really did turn his life around. Nothing good would come of him being in prison. I wish there was more focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment in the US. The prison system is disgusting as it is currently.

Russ1642:I'm conflicted. He deserved jail, but now it seems like it wouldn't benefit anyone.

The attorney makes a good point in TFA. One of the intents of incarceration is rehabilitation, which this guy clearly doesn't need (I'm not even going to touch the discussion of whether our prison system is effective at fulfilling that intent anyway).

All the other intents of incarceration I can think of seem shaky at best in this case:Repaying "debt to society": Sounds like he's been a productive contributor in the meanwhile, so no.Restitution for victims: I can't say for sure, but I imagine if you presented the victims (store clerk and owner of store) with the facts of this case, they'd likely forgive the guy.Deterring other criminals: Seems like punishing this guy now would more likely disillusion people about the government, and possibly encourage antisocial behavior.

Seems like their are some constitutional arguments that could come into play too. "Fair and speedy trial" if you can make the argument that the sentencing should be considered part of the trial for these purposes. "Cruel and unusual punishment"... letting a convict walk free for thirteen years and then jailing him is certainly at least unusual, if not somewhat cruel.

Anderson had just one arrest for marijuana possession on his record when he and a cousin robbed an assistant manager for a St. Charles Burger King restaurant on Aug. 15, 1999. The men, wearing masks, showed a gun (it turned out to be a BB gun) and demanded money that was about to be placed in a deposit box.

pute kisses like a man:statute of limitations is from the date of the crime to prosecution. he has already been prosecuted, tried, and convicted, so statute of limitations is not applicable. then there's right to a speedy trial... but he had a speedy trial... maybe there's a constitutional punishment issue, to wait fearful for 13 years... but, that's a little goofy too.

Sounds like you could make the case for cruel and unusual punishment here: Through no fault of his own, the state took 13 years to get around to punishing him. That's cruel and unusual, in my book, especially since he has seemed to turn his life around.

This is very sad, but the law is the law and unless the judge commutes the sentence (which he should), the poor man will have to stay in jail until his first parole hearing at least.

asynchron:Seems like their are some constitutional arguments that could come into play too. "Fair and speedy trial" if you can make the argument that the sentencing should be considered part of the trial for these purposes. "Cruel and unusual punishment"... letting a convict walk free for thirteen years and then jailing him is certainly at least unusual, if not somewhat cruel.

I agree. He may have an out on these ground and the fact that he has lived an exemplary life and that no one was hurt in the robbery he participated in. Thirteen years seems a bit steep for an armed robbery of a petty amount of cash in which a BB gun was used. But we tend to put colored peoples in jail for as long as we can in this country.

Judging by what he's done with the last 13 years of his life if he had served his time he'd be the poster boy for the tough on crime folks instead he served zero time and is now a great argument for leniency and why resources should be spent on crime prevention and alternative sentencing. So basically this guy is farked.

Seems like I read a story this week, or was talking to my wife about something where it came up that there was a 1 year window for some state or County to appeal a sentence if they didn't feel it was severe enough. Seems to me that there should be the same kind of expiration date on this. If they go a year and forget about you(And you are not hiding in some way, unable to be found), then AT THE VERY LEAST, you should have that much time removed from your sentence. They totally forget about you for 2 years? 2 years off your sentence, stuff like that.

pute kisses like a man:timujin: If this has gone on longer than the statute of limitations on the original crime, they just need to let the guy go.

statute of limitations is from the date of the crime to prosecution. he has already been prosecuted, tried, and convicted, so statute of limitations is not applicable. then there's right to a speedy trial... but he had a speedy trial... maybe there's a constitutional punishment issue, to wait fearful for 13 years... but, that's a little goofy too.

sounds like he's screwed because justice is not about fairness. it's a system that works as hard as it can to be applied according to its system. inherently, it will make mistakes, and then refuse equity to enter the question. because, after all, this is a society of of laws, not men.

/ i would support the governor that would commute a sentence like this. the governor enjoys an equitable check and balance to the harshness of the law. so, as a government, we have prepared for fark ups in the system. unfortunately, no governor has ever commuted any sentence, unless for his campaign supporters.

I realize that, legally, the statute of limitations doesn't apply in this case. However, it could be used as a guideline when dealing with what is a very particular and unusual set of circumstances.

Yes but not putting him in prison might encourage OTHER people who haven't received their prison papers to keep quiet and turn their lives around.

Putting him in prison now is the best choice. That would encourage others in his situation to keep quiet and go on bigger and better crime sprees while they await their inevitable jail sentence, which is the preferable outcome.

This case reminds me a little of "A Clockwork Orange" (the book). In the end he turns into a normal member of society.

It also raises the question of "what good would have come of putting this guy in prison for 13 years in the first place?" Armed robbery with a BB gun... On the one hand, He deserves punishment, on the other hand it has obviously worked out better NOT to punish him.

The morning of hurricane Katrina i hit a semi on 94 outside Gary Indiana. Was charged with hit and run, minor in possession of alcohol and public intox. I bailed out of jail come monday and was told they would send me something in the mail. Which of course they did about three years later. I called, they seemed confused and dropped all charges. Even returned my 500 dollar bail.

Russ1642:I'm conflicted. He deserved jail, but now it seems like it wouldn't benefit anyone.

Came here to say this. Article did all it could to point out, "Hey, this guy wasn't hiding. He didn't commit any more crimes. Paid his taxes. Got a job." He's probably one of ten who would've done such a thing. How many have had this happen and we never heard about it because the criminal moved to Mexico? Canada?

i figure every black guy wants to be in jail once....ok quiet down13 years free and he raised and stayed with his kids and now did a little time in jail..let him go he did his time.i figure if they haven't done anything in a year it is their problem.he did his time with kids that should be enough !

timujin:If this has gone on longer than the statute of limitations on the original crime, they just need to let the guy go.

Not only that, but the guy has done himself what prison (laughably) claims its goal is: rehabilitation and reintegration into society as a productive member.

This guy not only got a job, but owns three businesses--legal ones. Pays taxes on them, got married, had kids, and hasn't committed a crime since. Even pays his parking tickets--half of cops and Congress don't even bother with that. Hell half of people never convicted of anything don't do that!

He never hid or ran, never got jacked when pulled over for traffic infractions, never got picked up when going to pay parking tickets... it's nuts.

Google-fu shows the state has 3 years (in Missouri) to bring charges for armed robbery. They can, however, drag the case on as long as they like (according to a Missouri lawyer's answer to the question that I found through a Google search). So he could be screwed. IANAL, but it looks like his best chance may be with the Governor.

I understand and agree with 1-3, but why 4? Isn't it kind of the lawyer's job to make sure the client doesn't go to jail? And holding the client up as a model citizen after doing something utterly stupid only helps the client's case.

This guy was told to go home and wait to be told when to report. Clearly, the State of Missouri did not believe he was at risk to re-offend/dangerous or they would have held him (at least, that's what most states do if the judge thinks someone is dangerous). He proved to not be dangerous or a re-offender, so I'm really confused why the lawyer needs disciplined for, um, keeping his client out of jail when that's the precise definition of a defense attorney's job.

Olthoi:You can sign a change.org petition to get him out of prison and back to his family here:http://www.change.org/petitions/attorney-general-chris-koster-rel ease-cornealious-michael-anderson-iii-from-prison?utm_campaign=new_sig nature&utm_medium=email&utm_source=signature_receipt#share

Sort of like how all those facebook likes will be converted to food to feed the starving children?

dittybopper:That's cruel and unusual, in my book, especially since he has seemed to turn his life around.

You know, I wonder how many would turn their lives around even without decades of prison?

I mean, if you look at the charts, something like 80% of crime is committed by males between the ages of 15 and 25. The offense rate after 25 is half that of 18. I've heard plenty of 'I'm lucky I never got caught' youth stories. It's almost like puberty drives a good percentage of young males temporarily criminally insane.